Comparing IDREAM as an Iterative Reconstruction Algorithm against In Filtered Back Projection in Computed Tomography

Document Type : Original Paper

Author

cairo ,egypt

Abstract

Introduction: Recent studies of Computed Tomography (CT) conducted on patient dose reduction have recommended using an iterative reconstruction algorithm and mA (mili-Ampere) dose modulation. The current study aimed to evaluate Iterative Dose Reduction Algorithm (IDREAM) as an iterative reconstruction algorithm.
Material and Methods: Two CT protocols (i.e., A: 120 KV /150 mA, FBP; B: 120KV/ (20-150) mAs, IDREAM) to scan water and acrylic phantoms. A number of 40 patients were assigned to two CT protocols (C: n=20, 120KV/160 ±10 mAs, FBP and D: n=20, 120 KV/ (30-150 mAs, IDREAM), the two groups (C and D) were then referred to abdomen and pelvis CT scan (Sinovision, insitum 16) with contrast. Image quality parameters, dose calculations were measured for all groups (i.e., A, B, C, and D).
Results: Group B had a highly significant SNR with less significant noise (P<0.05), in comparison with group A. In addition, uniformity was markedly higher for group B (P<0.05) in water phantom and insignificantly different (P>0.05) in acrylic phantom, as compared to group A.  CTDIvol (A: 13.94 mGy ; B: 6.91 mGy , P<0.05  ) and   DLP (A:501.76 mGy.cm ; B :248.88 mGy.cm). Noise and SNR were significantly different (P<0.05) in group D against C. CTDIvol (C: 30.3±5.2 mGy ; D : 15.4 ±2.7 mGy, P<0.05 ) ,   DLP (C:544±100 mGy.cm; D :272.3±50.3 mGy.cm ,P<0.05) and the effective dose (C:8.1±1.5 mSv; D :4.08±0.75 mSv,P<0.05)
Conclusion: The results of the present study were indicative of the feasibility of IDREAMas an iterative reconstruction algorithm.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1. Stiller W. Basics of iterative reconstruction methods in computed tomography: A vendor-independent overview, Eur J Radiol. 2018; 109:147-54. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2018.10.025.
  2. Nakamoto A, Yamamoto K, Sakane M, Nakai G, Higashiyama A, Juri H, et al. Reduction of the radiation dose and the amount of contrast material in hepatic dynamic CT using low tube voltage and adaptive iterative dose reduction 3-dimensional. Medicine. 2018 Aug; 97(34). DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000011857.
  3. Harris MA, Huckle J, Anthony D, Charnock P. The acceptability of iterative reconstruction algorithms in head CT: an assessment of sinogram affirmed iterative reconstruction (SAFIRE) vs. filtered back projection (FBP) using phantoms. Journal of medical imaging and radiation sciences. 2017; 48(3):259-69.
  4. Li X, Shu H, Zhang Y, Li X, Song J, Du J, et al. Low-dose CT with adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction for evaluation of urinary stone. Oncotarget. 2018 Apr 13;9(28):20103.  DOI:10.18632/oncotarget.25047.
  5. Kimple AJ, McClurg SW, Huang BY, Sreenath SB, McClintock BW, Tomoum M, et al. Image quality and dose reduction in sinus computed tomography using iterative reconstruction: a cadaver study. Rhinology online. 2018;1:45.  DOI:10.4193/RHINOL/18.015.
  6. Nowik P, Bujila R, Poludniowski G, Fransson A. Quality control of CT systems by automated monitoring of key performance indicators: a two‐year study. Journal of applied clinical medical physics. 2015;16(4):254-65.
  7. A Task Group of the Nuclear Medicine Committee. Computer-Aided Scintillation Camera Acceptance Testing: American Institute of Physics. AAPM Report. 1982(091982).
  8. McNitt-Gray M, DABR F. Assessing radiation dose: how to do it right. AAPM CT dose summit, Denver. 2011.
  9. Schindera ST, Diedrichsen L, Müller HC, Rusch O, Marin D, Schmidt B, et al. Iterative reconstruction algorithm for abdominal multidetector CT at different tube voltages: assessment of diagnostic accuracy, image quality, and radiation dose in a phantom study. Radiology. 2011;260(2):454-62.
  10. Smith-Bindman R, Wang Y, Chu P, Chung R, Einstein AJ, Balcombe J, et al. International variation in radiation dose for computed tomography examinations: prospective cohort study. Bmj. 2019;364.
  11. Ferrero A, Takahashi N, Vrtiska TJ, Krambeck AE, Lieske JC, McCollough CH. Understanding, justifying, and optimizing radiation exposure for CT imaging in nephrourology. Nature Reviews Urology. 2019;16(4):231-44.
  12. Silva AC, Lawder HJ, Hara A, Kujak J, Pavlicek W. Innovations in CT dose reduction strategy: application of the adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction algorithm. American Journal of Roentgenology. 2010;194(1):191-9.
  13. Grosser OS, Ruf J, Kupitz D, Czuczwara D, Loewenthal D, Thormann Met al. Iterative CT reconstruction in abdominal low-dose CT used for hybrid SPECT-CT applications: effect on image quality, image noise, detectability, and reader’s confidence. Acta radiologica open. 2019 ;8(6):2058460119856266. DOI:10.1177/2058460119856266.
  14. Chen GP, Noid G, Tai A, Liu F, Lawton C, Erickson B, et al. Improving CT quality with optimized image parameters for radiation treatment planning and delivery guidance. Physics and Imaging in Radiation Oncology. 2017;4:6-11.
  15. Pauchard B, Higashigaito K, Lamri-Senouci A, Knebel JF, Berthold D, Verdun FR, et al. Iterative reconstructions in reduced-dose CT: which type ensures diagnostic image quality in young oncology patients?. Academic radiology. 2017;24(9):1114-24.
  16. Grosser OS, Ruf J, Kupitz D, Czuczwara D, Loewenthal D, Thormann M, et al. Iterative CT reconstruction in abdominal low-dose CT used for hybrid SPECT-CT applications: effect on image quality, image noise, detectability, and reader’s confidence. Acta radiologica open. 2019 ;8(6):2058460119856266. DOI: 10.1177/2058460119856266.

 

 

Iranian Journal of Medical Physics
Volume 17, Issue 3
May and June 2020
Pages 170-174

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 16 July 2019
  • Revise Date: 17 September 2019
  • Accept Date: 22 September 2019

Share

How to cite

Statistics